Oddbean

Yeah that's a fair point. That's why wos left the USA, too big of a target on their back. I think there is a solution to be had, though I don't know what it is. I hear CLN is much more reliable than LND. Could be something there. In any case, we are (relatively speaking) early days still and I do think L2 solutions are important for bitcoin to scale. For any solution stack, the base layer should be simple and relatively dumb. The intricate solutions happen on subsequent layers adding use-case specific functionality. I do agree there's a lot of reliability problems with the current lightning layer. Part of that could stem from so many plebs running unreliable nodes on raspi. But I also think we can't give up on developing and testing (nor get complacent with what we have). Like I said, I think a proper L2 solution is crucial.

It's a bit of chicken and egg. If someone hasn't seen the "magic" and only sees a massive technical discussion focused on why it's not working.... they'll never try it. And subsequently will have no reason to later advocate for better solutions. Someone presented with this might write off bitcoin altogether because it's perceived as "not useable" But an admittedly overly cheerleading front could be enough to push someone thru the pain points to at least try it. This is where I see custodial solutions having a big positive use-case. Sure a handful will get disillusioned and dissapointed but at least they tried it. I think the majority will see the benefits and the possibilities and understand its still early tech. At this stage, we introduce the problems... but only after they've been hooked on the potential possibilities. Sure it's not 100% there yet but it can and will be soon(tm). This is how we then build more advocates for better solutions.

Very frustrating for someone who is already fully convicted on the SOV functionality though. I did try it. A lot. And mostly it failed. But the "it" being LN and not BTC. Can't conflate BTC and LN as one "thing".